You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

January 30, 2026

Vietnam Issues New Decree on Administrative Sanctions for Copyright and Related Rights

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

On December 26, 2025, the government of Vietnam promulgated Decree No. 341/2025/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for violations of copyright and related rights (Decree 341), with an effective date of February 15, 2026. The new decree replaces Decree No. 131/2013/ND-CP, as amended, and represents the first comprehensive revision of the administrative enforcement framework in this area in eight years.

Legislative Context and Objectives

Decree 341 reflects Vietnam’s evolving copyright and related-rights framework, particularly in light of the country’s commitments under bilateral, regional, and multilateral treaties governing the digital environment. While the decree retains a number of provisions from the previous regime, it also introduces significant amendments to infringing acts, penalty thresholds, remedial measures, and enforcement procedures.

The primary objectives of the new decree are to (i) enhance the deterrent effect of administrative sanctions; (ii) harmonize sanctions with the 2025 amendments to the Law on Intellectual Property and criminal law principles; and (iii) address enforcement challenges arising from online and cross-border exploitation of copyrighted works.

Expanded Scope of Sanctionable Subjects

Under Decree 341, administrative sanctions apply not only to Vietnamese entities committing infringing acts within Vietnam, but also to Vietnamese and foreign entities that commit acts of infringement on the internet where the protected content is accessed, consumed, or exploited by users in Vietnam.

This expansion reflects the realities of cross-border digital exploitation. However, the decree does not yet provide precise definitions of key terms such as “users” or “consumers” of digital content in Vietnam, which may require further regulatory clarification.

Monetary Penalties and Penalty Structure

The statutory maximum fines remain unchanged, at VND 250 million for individuals and VND 500 million for organizations, but the penalty framework is substantially restructured. Fines are now calibrated based on three core criteria: (i) the amount of illegal profit obtained; (ii) the level of damage caused to the rights holder; or (iii) the value of the infringing goods.

This approach aligns administrative sanctions more closely with criminal law principles and ensures greater proportionality between the infringement and the penalty imposed. However, the monetary fines still appear low compared with the damage suffered by IP holders as a result of copyright infringement.

Substantially Expanded Remedial Measures

One of the most notable developments introduced by Decree 341 is the significant expansion of remedial measures applicable to copyright and related rights infringements, an increase from four to 29.

The introduction of these measures equips authorities with a broader and more flexible toolkit to address both traditional, physical infringements and infringements occurring in the digital environment. Notably, several of these remedies were previously available only through civil litigation.

Key examples include:

  • Mandatory public apologies to the affected rights holder.
  • Mandatory surrender of copyright certificates, which may effectively function as a de facto revocation of the granted rights.
  • Temporary removal or blocking of access to infringing digital content, a mechanism comparable to interim injunctions in civil proceedings.
  • Obligations on infringers to disgorge profits obtained from the infringing acts.

Certain aspects of the new regime remain unclear. In particular, while Decree 341 introduces mandatory public apologies and profit disgorgement as sanctions, there is currently no detailed regulatory guidance on how illicit profits should be calculated or whether such profits are to be treated as a form of compensable damage. As a result, there remains uncertainty as to how these remedies will be applied in practice and how consistently enforcement authorities will interpret and implement them.

Further implementing guidance will therefore be critical to ensuring legal certainty and uniform application of these newly introduced measures.

Expansion of Infringing Acts

The scope of sanctionable conduct has been expanded from 31 to 43 categories of violations, including 35 acts of copyright and related-rights infringement and 8 other administrative violations related to copyright and related rights.

This expansion reflects the increasing complexity of infringement in the digital environment and provides enforcement authorities with clearer legal grounds to address emerging forms of misconduct. One important new provision allows the authorities to impose sanctions on internet service providers if they commit violations, such as failing to provide information about infringers or failing to comply with official orders.

Enforcement Authorities

Decree 341 confirms a broad range of competent authorities, including:

  • People’s Committees at all levels;
  • Inspectors of the Civil Aviation Authority of Vietnam and the Vietnam Maritime and Waterway Administration;
  • Leaders of state management agencies in relevant sectors, including departments under the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MOCST);
  • Directors General of the broadcasting, press, and publishing authorities; and
  • Law-enforcement bodies, including the police, border guards, the coast guard, customs, and market surveillance forces.

Notably, the Inspectorate of the MOCST no longer functions as a permanent enforcement body. Instead, the leaders of the MOCST or provincial/city-level Departments of Culture, Sports and Tourism can form ad hoc inspection teams, depending on the nature of the violation.

Procedural Reforms

Decree 341 introduces important procedural safeguards that were absent from the previous framework. These include detailed rules on the form and recipients of mandatory apologies; specific methodologies for calculating illegal profits; and formal grounds for refusing or suspending administrative enforcement where there is a dispute over ownership, scope, duration, or subject matter of copyright or related rights.

These provisions enhance legal certainty and reduce the risk of overlapping or premature administrative action where civil disputes remain unresolved.

Conclusion

Decree 341 represents a substantial modernization of Vietnam’s administrative enforcement regime for copyright and related rights. By expanding the scope of infringements, strengthening remedies, and refining enforcement procedures, the decree is expected to improve the effectiveness of rights protection, particularly in the digital environment.

Rights holders operating in or targeting the Vietnamese market should review their enforcement strategies in light of this new framework and prepare to take advantage of the broader range of remedies and enforcement mechanisms available from February 2026 onward.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More